30 ms·

I love it. Apple gets to avoid paying taxes for years through accounting slight of hand, and then when they finally pay for part of what they owe they want a pa

by krebby 9y ago

I love it. Apple gets to avoid paying taxes for years through accounting slight of hand, and then when they finally pay for part of what they owe they want a pat on the back for doing so. Corporations, man.

IBM 9y ago
The taxes are only one part of this announcement. >Apple expects to invest over $30 billion in capital expenditures in the US over the next five years and create over 20,000 new jobs through hiring at existing campuses and opening a new one. All of this is discretionary spending.
crusso 9y ago
they finally pay for part of what they owe You only owe the taxes that the law compels you to pay. There's no obligation whatsoever to pay a dime more. Do you personally look to pay the maximum amount of taxes that you could possibly justify through various readings of the tax code? Because I guarantee that your tax software or your tax accountant are not "taking advantage" of opportunities for you to pay more unless you look to.
- krebby 9y ago
  No but I also don't set up a pretend subsidiary in Ireland that owns my intellectual property and pays me dividends for my freelance work. To pretend that they didn't go above and beyond to avoid paying taxes is lunacy.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sigstoat 9y ago
    > No but I also don't set up a pretend subsidiary... do you pay your state government the sales tax you owe it for all of your online purchases?
    - jonny_eh 9y ago
      That would take more work to pay more taxes. Apple did work (setting up a subsidiary) to avoid paying taxes.
      - discoursism 9y ago
        I set up my 401k. That was work. I've also done the mega-backdoor Roth IRA last year, and will do it again this year. Am I a bad man?
        tanderson92 9y ago
        Courts have ruled in favor of the mega-backdoor Roth IRA as a legitimate intended use of the tax code.
    - CamelCaseName 9y ago
      At least here in Canada, sellers are legally obligated to remit sales taxes, even if they do not explicitly collect them. The buyer does not need to do anything. I made this mistake when I first starting selling online, which stung. Setting up a tax ID in Canada was very easy. Now that I am selling in the US, I am just beginning to explore the issue, and it is notably less easy. So if you "get away" with not paying sales tax online, it is likely that the sales tax was simply baked into the price.
      - sigstoat 9y ago
        this does not reflect the situation in the US, where krebby appears to be located. (i checked first.) here's a little page from washington state on it, which matches my understanding of the situation in most other states: https://dor.wa.gov/get-form-or-publication/publications-subject/tax-topics/sales-tax-not-listed-invoice https://dor.wa.gov/get-form-or-publication/publications-subj... > Have you ever made a retail purchase and the invoice didn’t include retail sales tax? This may occasionally occur, especially if you purchase items over the internet or from out-of-state vendors. ... However, the buyer has a responsibility to pay use tax to the Department of Revenue even if the seller doesn’t collect it. > Also, an invoice should never have a single figure that “includes retail sales tax.” If you receive such an invoice, contact the vendor and ask for a new invoice with the retail sales tax separately stated. Washington law requires that customer sales slips, contracts, invoices or other sales documents separately state the amount of retail sales tax due.
  - crusso 9y ago
    Maybe not, but I bought an electric car because I got $12k in tax credits from state and federal. If the law allowed me to set up a company facade so that I could keep more of the money that I earn, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
  - unethical_ban 9y ago
    If it cost $5 and took less than 10 minutes to set up, would you? For apple, the effort is worth the benefit. For you, it may not be.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    You also don't have shareholders to answer to.
    - namelost 9y ago
      If your spouse asks you do something ethically dubious (like enter into a tax avoidance scheme), does that make it OK?
  - chrischen 9y ago
    Are you reporting the sales tax that you owe on your inter-state internet purchases?
  - r0fl 9y ago
    This is probably because your business is too small. I’d youbwere making 10s or 100s of millions of dollars in annual profits you would have a pretend subsidiary by now. Apple has done nothing illegal. If you don’t like it, you can complain about the tax laws, that’s what is bothering you.
  - kec 9y ago
    Did apple actually do that? Do you have a source for Apple licensing tech from Ireland?
    - byroot 9y ago
      They did since the 80s and continue to do so for all their European revenues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement A huge part of their $250B stash have never been taxed at all.
    - cpeterso 9y ago
      Apple Operations International (AOI) and the "double Irish with a Dutch sandwich": http://fortune.com/2013/05/20/meet-aoi-apples-mysterious-irish-subsidiary-updated/ http://fortune.com/2013/05/20/meet-aoi-apples-mysterious-iri...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nikofeyn 9y ago
  you aren't accurately describing this situation with your analogy.
- Pulcinella 9y ago
  I would argue that legal obligations are different than moral obligations. You may not agree that wealthy corporations have no moral obligation to pay higher taxes, but I would say that not having a legal obligation to take some action is not the same as having no obligations period.
jdoliner 9y ago
Corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize their profits. If they did something as negligent as paying taxes they didn't have to pay, and that none of their competitors pay, they'd be opening themselves up to a lawsuit from shareholders. Laws are weird.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 9y ago
  Source?
  - sammychl 9y ago
    obligation definitely would come from the board+investors..who would kick out any ceo who doesn't maximise profit
  - aerotwelve 9y ago
    There is no source because there is no legal imperative for corporations to maximize shareholder value anywhere in the United States. It's a myth. Shareholder primacy is a theory -- though it's really more of an ideology -- that executives/board members can believe in, but it is by no means required by law[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
    - lightbyte 9y ago
      It's not a myth, it's a very common interpretation of Dodge v Ford [1] >A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits, or to the non-distribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes... It's not the only interpretation however >Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn't that interesting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
jjtheblunt 9y ago
I'm rather sure your criticism is ill-founded: the money they're talking about moving to (US) Apple Inc is actually profit of other companies also named Apple homed in other countries, of course related to (US) Apple Inc and set up by the original, but with profits already taxed (your point: at questionable rates) in those home countries. They could just reinvest those profits in THOSE countries rather than the US. I imagine folks in those other countries might be sore that Apple <Other Country> isn't locally investing.
- revelation 9y ago
  They should probably stick away some of it under the cushions of their Irish sofa, what with that $13B EU tax bill still pending. But you are correct of course, that money are the proceeds from their tax evasion schemes overseas.
pteredactyl 9y ago
I'm glad you love it. Do you also pay more taxes than legally required because you're a good person?

by krebby 9y ago

IBM 9y ago

The taxes are only one part of this announcement. >Apple expects to invest over $30 billion in capital expenditures in the US over the next five years and create over 20,000 new jobs through hiring at existing campuses and opening a new one. All of this is discretionary spending.

crusso 9y ago

they finally pay for part of what they owe You only owe the taxes that the law compels you to pay. There's no obligation whatsoever to pay a dime more. Do you personally look to pay the maximum amount of taxes that you could possibly justify through various readings of the tax code? Because I guarantee that your tax software or your tax accountant are not "taking advantage" of opportunities for you to pay more unless you look to.

krebby 9y ago
No but I also don't set up a pretend subsidiary in Ireland that owns my intellectual property and pays me dividends for my freelance work. To pretend that they didn't go above and beyond to avoid paying taxes is lunacy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sigstoat 9y ago
  > No but I also don't set up a pretend subsidiary... do you pay your state government the sales tax you owe it for all of your online purchases?
  - jonny_eh 9y ago
    That would take more work to pay more taxes. Apple did work (setting up a subsidiary) to avoid paying taxes.
    - discoursism 9y ago
      I set up my 401k. That was work. I've also done the mega-backdoor Roth IRA last year, and will do it again this year. Am I a bad man?
      - tanderson92 9y ago
        Courts have ruled in favor of the mega-backdoor Roth IRA as a legitimate intended use of the tax code.
  - CamelCaseName 9y ago
    At least here in Canada, sellers are legally obligated to remit sales taxes, even if they do not explicitly collect them. The buyer does not need to do anything. I made this mistake when I first starting selling online, which stung. Setting up a tax ID in Canada was very easy. Now that I am selling in the US, I am just beginning to explore the issue, and it is notably less easy. So if you "get away" with not paying sales tax online, it is likely that the sales tax was simply baked into the price.
    - sigstoat 9y ago
      this does not reflect the situation in the US, where krebby appears to be located. (i checked first.) here's a little page from washington state on it, which matches my understanding of the situation in most other states: https://dor.wa.gov/get-form-or-publication/publications-subject/tax-topics/sales-tax-not-listed-invoice https://dor.wa.gov/get-form-or-publication/publications-subj... > Have you ever made a retail purchase and the invoice didn’t include retail sales tax? This may occasionally occur, especially if you purchase items over the internet or from out-of-state vendors. ... However, the buyer has a responsibility to pay use tax to the Department of Revenue even if the seller doesn’t collect it. > Also, an invoice should never have a single figure that “includes retail sales tax.” If you receive such an invoice, contact the vendor and ask for a new invoice with the retail sales tax separately stated. Washington law requires that customer sales slips, contracts, invoices or other sales documents separately state the amount of retail sales tax due.
- crusso 9y ago
  Maybe not, but I bought an electric car because I got $12k in tax credits from state and federal. If the law allowed me to set up a company facade so that I could keep more of the money that I earn, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  If it cost $5 and took less than 10 minutes to set up, would you? For apple, the effort is worth the benefit. For you, it may not be.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  You also don't have shareholders to answer to.
  - namelost 9y ago
    If your spouse asks you do something ethically dubious (like enter into a tax avoidance scheme), does that make it OK?
- chrischen 9y ago
  Are you reporting the sales tax that you owe on your inter-state internet purchases?
- r0fl 9y ago
  This is probably because your business is too small. I’d youbwere making 10s or 100s of millions of dollars in annual profits you would have a pretend subsidiary by now. Apple has done nothing illegal. If you don’t like it, you can complain about the tax laws, that’s what is bothering you.
- kec 9y ago
  Did apple actually do that? Do you have a source for Apple licensing tech from Ireland?
  - byroot 9y ago
    They did since the 80s and continue to do so for all their European revenues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement A huge part of their $250B stash have never been taxed at all.
  - cpeterso 9y ago
    Apple Operations International (AOI) and the "double Irish with a Dutch sandwich": http://fortune.com/2013/05/20/meet-aoi-apples-mysterious-irish-subsidiary-updated/ http://fortune.com/2013/05/20/meet-aoi-apples-mysterious-iri...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nikofeyn 9y ago
you aren't accurately describing this situation with your analogy.
Pulcinella 9y ago
I would argue that legal obligations are different than moral obligations. You may not agree that wealthy corporations have no moral obligation to pay higher taxes, but I would say that not having a legal obligation to take some action is not the same as having no obligations period.

jdoliner 9y ago

Corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize their profits. If they did something as negligent as paying taxes they didn't have to pay, and that none of their competitors pay, they'd be opening themselves up to a lawsuit from shareholders. Laws are weird.

rcMgD2BwE72F 9y ago
Source?
- sammychl 9y ago
  obligation definitely would come from the board+investors..who would kick out any ceo who doesn't maximise profit
- aerotwelve 9y ago
  There is no source because there is no legal imperative for corporations to maximize shareholder value anywhere in the United States. It's a myth. Shareholder primacy is a theory -- though it's really more of an ideology -- that executives/board members can believe in, but it is by no means required by law[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
  - lightbyte 9y ago
    It's not a myth, it's a very common interpretation of Dodge v Ford [1] >A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits, or to the non-distribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes... It's not the only interpretation however >Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn't that interesting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

jjtheblunt 9y ago

I'm rather sure your criticism is ill-founded: the money they're talking about moving to (US) Apple Inc is actually profit of other companies also named Apple homed in other countries, of course related to (US) Apple Inc and set up by the original, but with profits already taxed (your point: at questionable rates) in those home countries. They could just reinvest those profits in THOSE countries rather than the US. I imagine folks in those other countries might be sore that Apple <Other Country> isn't locally investing.

revelation 9y ago
They should probably stick away some of it under the cushions of their Irish sofa, what with that $13B EU tax bill still pending. But you are correct of course, that money are the proceeds from their tax evasion schemes overseas.

pteredactyl 9y ago

I'm glad you love it. Do you also pay more taxes than legally required because you're a good person?